The Doppler Effect for the redshifting of light observed from the Universe is one of the two pillars used to support the Big Bang Theory. The other is the observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which was predicted to exist in 1948 and then in 1965, found to exist, to which in 1978 the discoverers received the Nobel Prize for Physics.

One of the problems of the Big Bang theory is the rewind calculates into an unrealistic, unbelievable, and outrageous mathematical reality that says the creation of this Universe started from the size smaller than a pea and remarkably somehow expanded by a process called inflation to the size it is today in 35th billionth of a second.

Also there are still the undiscovered theoretical existence of dark matter and dark energy to substantiate the Doppler Effect as the reason for the Redshift. Common sense and logic says the jury should be out until these two supporting missing pieces for the puzzle are confirmed with certainly before the Big Bang can be called a theory. It is a fact that no matter how hard standard cosmology scientists try to make the Big Bang into a theory, it’s only a working model that tries to make the redshifting observed fit into a working mathematical equation that is unrealistic, improbable, and flawed because by most scientific definitions, fundamentally unsupportable. Read the rest of this entry »

“Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. “ (Habkkuk 2:2 Holy Bible KJV)

Astrophysics and particle science today is largely created by theorists who mathematically create their visions for models, theories, and hypothesizes and expect experimenters to confirm that their equations and formulates are correct. However in the end; the correct observational conclusion is the main ultimate decisive factor determining if the vision is correct, because if the conclusions made are wrong then the theory is also wrong.

What are the observations telling us, and are the parameters used for making the conclusions correct? Fundamental concepts for the real nature of energy, the misunderstanding of gravity, the complexity of light, and miscalculation of what is time, has caused misunderstanding and led scientific conclusions astray that leads into a scientific field that can be categorized as no-way science.

What is the direction the Universe is going into? Is the vision of an expanding cloud that is speeding away at a faster rate at the edges that even tugs at light to stretch it as portrayed by present conclusions or is it really something else that is based on a sure foundation supported by known laws of physics? Read the rest of this entry »

Cosmology is built on fundamental assumptions, and is categorized for definition by different groupings. Standard cosmology and non-standard cosmology – are the first analytical criteria used in the grouping of cosmology modeling.

Generally non-standard models are considered to be all the crackpot ideas while the standard model is to be accepted, taught, and perpetuated by the academic community. However the standard model has known problems which are defined if you want to look them up, also observable abnormalities, and a few/many serious unbelievable and non-logical conclusions.

There are two types of electromagnetic spectrum energy momentums – steady flow and explosive flow.

All energy diminishes from high to low – that is a simply fact of nature and is seen in countless examples. The energy from the sun decreases as it leaves the source and so does each star and each energy phenomenon occurring in the universe. Examples are everywhere even in the vacuum of space – which we were told enables energy to go on forever (but not supported by the observations or measurements.)

I already coined a word astromeinradiation for the recording of diminishing and remanent energies from a distance source. Now I am designing another word “dynascale” for the explosive flow.

When one discovers a new phenomenon and needs to create clarity there is a need to create a new word to describe it.

In astronomy or astrophysics a term is needed for when energy detection is diminished or lower by distance. When distances increase energy detection is decreased – that is a simple fact of nature – but so far not recognized in astronomy or astrophysics. There is a need to create a new word to make it a recognizable phenomenon.

Phenomenalism from the Greek phainomenon (appearance) philosophically means any system of thought that has to with appearances. “The difficulties present in the dualism of phenomenon and object have led a number of philosophers to the position of phenomenalism.” [Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion Eastern and Western Thought, W.L. Reese, Humanities Press]

If the descriptions and conclusions for an observation are altered in any way by conditions of perception due to phenomenalism, discombobulating science is created. To discombobulate is to become confused or stymied. Phenomenalism is a problem in astrophysics that leads to science going down the wrong path that causes confusion and stifles the true nature found in cosmology.

Phenomenalism is hardly recognized in scientific methodology for understanding the universe and I propose we develop and build a new branch of scientific methodology specifically called Astrophysics Phenomenalism to explore, identify and recognize the causes and effects that produce phenomenalism. Read the rest of this entry »

There are a lot of controversies regarding the current and dominant Big Bang Theory, which causes some professional and laypeople to doubt that the theory is correct.

The two main fundamental pillars of support for the Big Bang Theory are the redshifting of distance objects and the seeing of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

The Experimentum Crucis:

I propose a laboratory experiment as an experimentum crucis.The results of the crucial experiment offer a new conclusion for seeing the redshifting of distance objects and for the existence of the CMBR.Read the rest of this entry »

The Big Bang Universe contains a lot of conceptual problems which are generally supported by scientific consensus but if investigated there are flimsy underlying assumptions, conflicting interconnecting theories, and unexplainable abnormalities.

When one model of the universe is disposed of – it must be replaced by another.I propose for critical examination what I call the 3D Expanding Universe.

The foundational footings for launching the theory are a set of observation principles and two crucial experiments also known as critical experiments or by the Latin term experimentum crucis.

In science the conclusions from crucial experiment results are to enable the scientific community to decisively decide between two competing theories, falsify other interconnecting models, account for existing abnormalities, and provide measurable predictions.

The observation principles are tools that give greater understanding for making proper conclusions or likely assumptions for an earth observer to use.

The 3D Expanding Universe is a universe that expands into infinity that is creating larger and larger worlds that are observable and supported by advance scientific methodologies that will be explained in greater detail by content publishing in this website, Google+ and open science portals such as Figshare.

Theoretical physics with observational abnormalities, list of unsolved mysteries, physical paradoxes, or no-way physics type explanations are areas where one could apply scientific methodologies using the science method and scientifically falsify and/or make a scientific discovery.

The first step would be to ask the questions such as, where are the admitted problems that need solving, or what are the abnormalities known, or what needs more clarification, and spend a lot of time researching those areas. Gather up related data to increase your knowledge and provide that opportunity for an eureka moment or a systematic solution. Read the rest of this entry »